Easiest Way to Prove that There is a God (New Version)

‘Can you name a single thing in nature that has the property of hardness, but that is not hard itself?’

His reply was this:

‘That doesn’t make sense.’

Then again I wrote to him:

‘Thanks for your reply. From your reply it becomes clear that you also think that only a hard thing can have the property of hardness. I think this can further be translated to this: a hard thing will have the property of hardness simply because it is hard and not due to any other reason or factor lying outside of it. This is because if something can have the property of hardness due to some reason or factor lying outside of it, then in that case a thing that is not hard itself can also have this property. Am I clear up to this point?’

This made him furious. His angry retort was this:

‘Just how stupid do you think I am, Socrates? Tell me the point, don't try to sell me this scholastical dialectic.’

So I had to say goodbye to him with this:

‘I am not trying to sell you anything. I am just trying to show that there is evidence for the existence of God. But if you feel offended, then I will have to stop right now.’

Actually the point that I was trying to establish was that a thing cannot have the property of hardness if it is not itself hard.

Now let us suppose that what is really impossible has actually become possible, that there is a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself. In that case what will we have to conclude from this? We will have to conclude that the thing in question must have received this so-called property of hardness from something external to it (say A). Now it may be the case that A has also received this property from B, B has received it from C and so on ad infinitum. So here there will be an infinite regress. In order to stop this infinite regress we will have to ultimately posit the existence of a hard thing in nature from which the thing in question could have received its property of hardness.

That means if we find a thing in nature that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, then that thing will give the evidence that there is at least one hard thing in nature.

In a similar vein we can also say that if we find in nature a thing that has the property of softness but that is not soft itself, then that thing will give the evidence that there is at least one soft thing in nature.

In the same vein we can also say that if we find in nature an entity that has the property of timelessness but that is not timeless itself, then that entity will give the evidence that there is at least one timeless entity in the universe.

Now is there an entity in nature that has the property of timelessness but that is not timeless itself? Yes, there is. Light is such an entity. SR has shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. That means light has the property of timelessness. But light is not timeless, because light can be extinguished at any time. No star will burn forever in the sky. But a really timeless entity can never cease to be, because for it time does not exist. I am very much alive at this moment, but at the very next moment I may die. But for a timeless entity this very next moment will never arrive, simply because it is not in time. Thus a really timeless entity can never cease to be. That means the case of light is akin to the case of a thing that has the property of hardness but that is not hard itself, which will further mean that the property of timelessness is not light’s own inalienable property. Rather we will have to say that it has received this property from some entity external to it. Here also we will have to ultimately posit the existence of a timeless entity in the universe if we want to stop the infinite regress.

So, the property of timelessness of light shows that there is a timeless entity in this universe from which light has received its so-called property. As we have seen a timeless entity is also a deathless entity because it can never cease to be, so we can say that the property of light shows that there is a timeless and deathless entity in this universe.

An entity can have the property of timelessness due to two reasons only:
1) If it is not in time:
2) Or, it can have this property due to some reason or factor lying outside of it.

Being not in time an entity will have this property simply by default. Being not in time it can never cease to be, because for it there will never be any second moment. As light can be extinguished at any time, so we cannot say that light has the property of timelessness due to this reason. Rather we will have to say that it has this property due to some reason or factor lying outside of it. So in order to stop the infinite regress here we will have to ultimately posit the existence of an entity that will have this property simply because it is not in time.

Simply put:

Hardness is the property of a hard thing only. So, if we find this property in something that is not hard itself, then from that we can infer that there is a hard thing in nature.

Similarly we can say that timelessness is the property of a timeless entity only. So, if we find this property in some entity that is not timeless itself, then from that we can also infer that there is a timeless entity in the universe.